PLoS ONE’s relatively high impact factor may compromise its ability to support PLoS Biology and PLoS Medicine.
Are we witnessing the decline of the open access megajournal and a return to a discipline-based model of publishing?
PLoS has an interesting opportunity before it to push its most robust service, PLoS ONE, very aggressively for growth. PLoS can do this by lowering the cost of publishing fees, which would make it increasingly hard for other publishers to match them for a Gold OA service. This could result in PLoS ONE becoming the default OA publishing option for all STM publishing.
How does a non-profit publisher plan for its future when its revenue stream starts resembling the stock market?
Are authors leaving PLOS ONE for higher performing journals?
Claims of speed can be used to carve out a competitive edge, especially for journals serving authors. PLoS ONE entered the market claiming fast publication times, but data show that PLoS ONE is slowing down, with times more than doubling over the past few years. Is PLoS ONE losing its speed advantage?
The “publish or perish” culture has created a major mega-journal. But are its boundaries and standards built properly to avoid becoming an enabler of that culture?
Despite a growing anti-Impact Factor movement, a quick look at readership and search query data shows a continued growth of interest in knowing journals’ Impact Factors, even for the journal where it may be the least relevant.
Does the success of the scalable, multidisciplinary open access mega journal signal the imminent demise of the specialized, highly-selective subscription journal?
Representing data graphically is always tricky. It doesn’t help when a journalist misses many opportunities to verify the data, provide context, and ask some probing questions.
Publication output for the largest journal in science continues to fall, just not as fast as leading indicators would predict.
Can PLOS exist without a mega-journal?
Christos Petrou looks at megajournal performance and the resulting business implications.
Output in PLOS ONE dropped by 6000+ papers in 2016, calling into question the sustainability of PLOS’ business model.
Can community-action publishing prove to be a viable alternative to market-based publishing?